Jennie Robinson Faber
136ee2442b
9 session pages and 10 PS Guide markdown files for the Baby Ghosts cooperative foundations curriculum. Import script creates documents in Outline wiki with cross-links between paired session/PS Guide pages.
18 KiB
Session 4: Decision-Making in Practice
practicing collective decision-making and noticing current patterns
Welcome
- Slide: Tag Yourself
Intro - 2 min
You've identified your values and started making them actionable. But when the pressure is on and you need to make a call together, who decides? How? In traditional studios, the boss decides or the loudest voice wins. Cooperatives need different approaches that include everyone while still moving forward.
This session is about noticing your current patterns and practicing alternatives. Before we can design governance structures (next session), we need to see clearly how decisions actually happen now.
Check-in - 10 min
Last session you practiced Layers of Effect on a decision. What did you notice when you tried to connect your values to a specific decision? Was it easier or harder than expected?
Decision-making - 25 min
Who gets to raise issues? - 6 min
The old way of making decisions is the boss decides for everyone, or majority rules. But coops use different approaches that include everyone while still moving projects forward.
But before we look at different methods for decision-making, let's talk about when andwhy decisions need to be made.
In traditional structures, only managers can put items on meeting agendas. Only certain people can say "we need to decide this." Everyone else has to hope someone with authority notices the problem.
In a cooperative, anyone affected by an issue can bring it to the group. But we need systems so important things don't get lost and small things don't overwhelm us.
Activity: Private journaling (3 min)
- What decisions get made without asking anyone?
- What issues do you notice but can't formally raise?
- When do you wish you could say "hey, we should all talk about this"?
- What traits/behaviours get valued in your group? (e.g., fast processing, availability, wittiness, technical skills)
Where do cooperative decision-making opportunities come from? From members raising issues. Here are some examples:
- Proposals
- I think we should do X. Here's why and how. What does everyone think?
- Check-ins -
- How is everyone feeling about Y? Should we address this formally?
- Process intervention
- Can we try a different approach?
- Values checks
- How do these options align with our values?
But who makes decisions? When determining who will make a decision, ask:
- Who is most affected by that decision?
- Does it have far-reaching consequences for the entire cooperative (like a change to who can be a member), or does it mainly affect a specific discipline/person/team?
Tool introduction: Informal Hierarchy Check-In - 5 min
inspired by Fuck Hierarchy! by Yejin Lee
Studios should do a periodic check-in to assess how they are doing around informal hierarchy. These questions help you notice patterns before they become de facto process:
Who spoke most in our last meeting? This reveals voice distribution - whose contributions dominate discussions.
Whose idea did we go with by default? This reveals deference patterns - whose suggestions get adopted without much scrutiny.
Who knows how to do [X] that no one else knows? This reveals knowledge concentration - where expertise creates dependency.
What happened last time someone disagreed? This reveals dissent tolerance - whether pushback is welcomed or punished.
Whose schedule shapes our meeting times? This reveals whose needs get centred - who the group accommodates and who has to adjust.
You don't need to feel guilty if some of these questions point to you! For the group, it's important to notice patterns before they calcify.
Decision-making steps - 7 min
Whatever framework you use, cooperative decision-making involves choosing between options together. Consider these steps:
- Name the decision and who it affects. Be clear about what's actually being decided and whose voices need to be included.
- Understand the context. What's happening? What do people feel and notice about this situation? Emotions are rich information.
- Identify the underlying need. What are we actually trying to address here?
- Generate options together. What approaches might work? Encourage unconventional (weird!) ideas. Notice who's contributing: Are the same people always first to speak? Whose ideas get picked up and built on?
- Check alignment with your values. How do these options fit with who you want to be as a studio?
- Evaluate consequences collectively. Who benefits, who's affected, what trade-offs exist? Notice whose preferences are shaping the conversation and whether anyone has gone quiet.
- Decide using your chosen framework. Name the method (consent, consensus, etc.) before you begin. Before finalizing, pause and ask directly: "Does anyone have concerns they haven't voiced?" or "Is anyone agreeing just to move on?" Give time for people to respond, especially those who process more slowly or tend to stay quiet. Silence doesn't mean agreement.
- Clarify implementation and revisit. Who does what? When will you check back to see if adjustments are needed?
Adapted from Effective Practices in Starting Co-ops
Handling dissent - 5 min
When someone raises a concern late in the process, don't get frustrated that they are slowing the process down. This issuper valuable information! Thank them for speaking up! It's not an easy thing to do, even for a contrarian (well, maybe).
Then consider: Is this a clarification or modification that can be addressed quickly? Or does it point to something more fundamental that means the group isn't ready to decide? If the concern is substantial, revisit earlier steps (especially 2, 3, or 5).
Watch for language like "I guess I can live with it" or "I don't want to hold everyone up," which show that someone is just giving in to move things along rather than really consenting. A decision that leaves someone feeling steamrolled will cost more in trust and cohesion than the time it takes to slow down.
Frameworks - 25 min
Different decisions call for different approaches. Here are five common frameworks:
Consensus - 7 min
Everyone agrees that the selected option is the right option. Members can block a decision if it is not their top choice (even if they'd be ok with it).
"It's important to remember that no decision-making structure can prevent all conflict or power dynamics, or guarantee that we will never be frustrated or bored or decide to part ways. But consensus decision-making at least helps us avoid the worst costs of hierarchies and majority rules, which can include abuse of power, demobilization of most people, and inefficiency.Consensus decision-making gives us the best chance to hear from everyone concerned, address power dynamics, and make decisions that represent the best wisdom of the group and that people in the group will want to implement."
Consensus decision-making is the most effective way to make important decisions with small groups. The process requires direct participation and active listening from all involved and, when well facilitated, leads to better decisions and stronger commitment.
Core principles:
- All participants contribute
- Everyone's opinions are used and encouraged
- Differences are viewed as helpful rather than hindering
- Those members who continue to disagree after full discussion indicate that they are willing to experiment for a prescribed period of time
- Enough time will be spent that all voices are heard and understood before an effort to finalize a decision is made, however long that takes
- All members share in the final decision
Advantages:
- Members are more likely to support the decision
- Provides for a win-win solution
- Facilitates open communication
- Requires members to listen and understand all sides of the issue
- Sets the stage for action: Who, What, Where, When
Disadvantages:
- Takes more time in a group; the larger the group, the more time may be needed
- Trust is needed among members to encourage sharing
- Group leaders must use facilitation rather than control
Steps in facilitating consensus:
- Describe and define the problem, situation, or issue
- Brainstorm a list of alternatives without judging, discussing, or rejecting any ideas
- Take only one idea from each person to start
- Review, change, consolidate, rewrite, and set priorities as a group through discussion
- Make a decision; when it's reached make sure it is written so that everyone can see it
- Evaluate the results later - revise if needed
Source: Russ Christianson (Effective Practices in Starting Co-ops, p. 470) and Washington State University Cooperative Extension
Consent - 5 min
Consent helps us find an option that everyone is okay with, even if it's not their first choice. The decision statement must be carefully worded so that everyone is crystal clear on what they are consenting to.
The question in consent is: "Is this good enough for now, safe enough to try?"
This is different from consensus. In consensus, everyone must actively agree that the decision is the right choice. In consent, the bar is lower: no one has a paramount objection. You're asking "Can you live with this? Does it violate your values or cause harm you can't accept?" rather than "Do you love this?".
Consent also protects against the opposite problem: rigidity. When a group treats past decisions as permanent - "but we already agreed to make an RPG" - it can become impossible to adapt when things change. Consent-based decisions are explicitly revisitable. The question isn't just "can you live with this?" but also "can you live with thisfor now, knowing we'll check back?" If someone is blocking a revisit of an old decision, that's worth examining - are they protecting a genuine value, or has the original decision become an identity they can't let go of?
Sociocracy is one approach to this. Sociocratic organizations use a peer governance system based on consent, where work is organized into semiautonomous small groups, known as circles. Sociocracy has a very specific formal structure for consent decision-making. We'll link to its process so you can check it out.
Consent Decision Making – Sociocracy 3.0
Consent makes room for experimentation. If a decision doesn't work, you can always revisit it. This prevents analysis paralysis while still hearing everyone's concerns.
Majority/democratic - 2 min
Each member votes, and the option with the most votes wins. This could be a simple majority (51%), or a different ratio such as two-thirds.
Delegation - 2 min
The member with the most expertise makes the decision. How is this person determined? Through a decision! ;)
Random chance/coin flip - 2 min
So... no one wants to decide. Use a tool that generates a random(ish) yea or nay.
Meetings - 25 min
Most meetings suck because they're designed hierarchically (one person talks, decisions happen elsewhere later). We're going to redesign them horizontally!
Preparation for an inclusive meeting - 3 min
- Use accessible tools for finding everyone's availability (Doodle, When2Meet, LettuceMeet, etc.)
- Keep the meeting duration as short as you can while covering the agenda. Remember, participants' energy levels will fluctuate and you don't want to go so long that people get cranky. If you have too much ground to cover, consider moving some items to an asynchronous method like Slack threads or moving it to the agenda of a future meeting.
- Prepare and share the agenda with time limits per item.
- Assign roles and ensure they are rotated from previous meetings.
Let's talk about meeting roles!
Meeting roles - 10 min
Meeting roles shouldn't be static. When the same person always facilitates, their style becomes "how we do meetings." Rotation (rotation! rotation! we can't emphasize this enough) builds shared skills and prevents informal hierarchy from becoming default process.
Facilitator
Guides the conversation and keeps things on track. The facilitator's job is to help the group's wisdom emerge rather than act as an expert on the topics. They should self-moderate their own input and be especially conscious of not being the strongest voice. They also pay attention to group dynamics -- such as, who hasn't spoken? Is someone checked out? Is tension building? (Some folks break this last responsibility into aprocess/vibes observer role, which may be especially helpful when trying out new decision-making methods.)
Tips:
- Before opening the floor, you can provide some quiet time for participants to write their thoughts down first
- Using "popcorn" style means anyone can jump in to share without a formal queue. Avoid selecting people to speak randomly - this can be stressful for those who do not wish to be called on. If multiple people indicate they want to speak, keep track of the queue and update the group.
- Share the floor. The facilitator makes sure that everyone gets heard and included, and no one dominates the discussion. They might intervene: "Jennie, we've heard a lot from you and I want to give some others a chance to share their perspectives."
- Provide regular process updates - that is, say what you're doing: "I'm going to take a few ideas, then we'll discuss"
- Listen actively and deeply
- Reflect back ideas that are shared and check with the speaker that you understand. This is an opportunity to synthesize what you just heard with the wider conversation to help everyone's understanding.
- Put ideas for later in the parking lot
- Red flags: rushing process and not tolerating awkwardness
- Check in with energy levels, especially when you see people are flagging. A 5- or 10-minute break might help perk everyone up to continue.
- Have prompts on hand if things go awry:
- "I am noticing the tension. Should we pause and address that first?"
- "I feel like we're going in circles/getting stuck - let's try a different approach."
- "Let's pause for a moment and look at our process."
Notetaker/minutes goblin
Captures attendance, most important points, decisions made, and action items. Good notes include who decided what andwhy, not just discussion summaries. This creates accountability that doesn't depend on memory.
Timekeeper
Tracks time for each agenda item and gives warnings when time is running low. Helps the group decide whether to extend, table, or wrap up.
Not every meeting needs all four roles, but rotating whatever roles you use prevents one person from becoming the de facto leader.
HOT TIP: Not everything needs to be a meeting! Meetings can also be a drain on a team. Consider when you can turn something into an asynchronous conversation or just have people assigned with tasks.
The "genius" trap - 3 min
When one person holds most of the knowledge, makes most of the creative calls, or is the only one who knows how something works, this is not a coop. You have a traditional studio with extra steps. This often emerges from who had time/was there first/whose skills were most visible at the start.
Questions to help you spot role concentration:
- who would we call if [X system] broke?
- whose absence would completely halt production?
- who "just handles" things that others don't fully understand?
If the same name keeps coming up, you have a capacity risk and a governance risk.
Role distribution != role rigidity - 3 min
Cooperative roles should be:
Visible
- everyone knows who's responsible for what
- assigned through discussion, not assumption
- reviewed periodically as capacity and skills change
This doesn't mean everyone does everything. Specialization is fine. The problem is when roles become permanent defaults that no one chose explicitly.
Tracking and micro-documentation - 5 min
Nobody loves tracking. (OK, maybe that biohacker guy Brian Johnson.) But when you don't document, institutional knowledge lives in one person's head, and that's how informal hierarchy gets baked in.
Micro-documentation means capturing just enough that others can:
- pick up where you left off
- understand why a decision was made
- notice patterns over time
This doesn't require elaborate systems. It can be:
- a shared doc/sheet where decisions get logged with date and rationale
- brief async updates ("here's what I did and why")
- meeting notes that include who decided what, not just discussion summaries
When you track decisions and contributions visibly, you create accountability that doesn't depend on memory or who speaks loudest.
Activity: Facilitation rotation practice - 15 min
In groups of three, each take a turn as facilitator, participant, and observer.
The facilitator will run a short discussion on a simple question (we'll give you one).
Sample questions:
- What game should we play together?
- What time during the week should we meet?
- Which two video game soundtracks should we swap?
- What type of team activity should we do?
The observer watches for dynamics: Who spoke first? How did the facilitator handle silence? How was the decision reached?
Rotate roles every 3 minutes.
Debrief (4 min): What did you notice from each role? What was harder than expected?
Noticing dynamics is the most important thing here.
Closing - 2 min
You've practiced frameworks and started noticing patterns - who speaks, who defers, whose defaults became the group's. These patterns are your governance, whether you've named it or not.
Next session, we'll look at formal structures: how do you design governance that supports the decision-making practices you want and addresses the dynamics you noticed?
Homework (with Peer Supports) - 3 min
-
Practice one decision-making framework on a real decision – Try consent or consensus on something that actually matters, even if it's small.
-
Map your current role distribution – Where did each role assignment come from: explicit decision, or implicit default?
-
Complete the Informal Hierarchy Check-In as a studio – Work through the 5 questions together. Bring your observations to Session 5.
-
Notice this week: where do decisions happen? – In meetings? DMs? Who's present?